|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
Klamath deal a
step in right
direction
Capital Press Editorial
Capital Press Editorial
November 27,
2008
The many groups and individuals in the Klamath Basin had a choice to make. Though the situation was exceedingly complicated, it boiled down to this: They could either sit down and attempt to untangle the many issues that have strangled progress in the region, or they could go back to the courts or work the backrooms in Washington, D.C., Sacramento and Salem to try to achieve their goals.
It is to the benefit of all that most of the parties chose the route of diplomacy and to work for a fair settlement of the issues facing them and everyone in the basin, which straddles the California-Oregon border.
The issues
Has there ever been a more complicated set of facts facing any region? Though farmers in California's Imperial and Central valleys and in Idaho's Snake River valley and Washington and Oregon's Columbia River valley have gone through the regulatory wringer on numerous occasions, those issues are no more complicated - or vexing - than those facing the Klamath Basin.
They include, but are not limited to, tribal rights, power generation and affordability, endangered species of fish and the availability of water for irrigation. Add to that the fact that the contested hydroelectric dams are downstream - rather than upstream - of the primary land served by most irrigation diversions, plus a couple of interbasin irrigation diversions, and you have a complex playing field.
During the course of years of negotiations, removal of four dams - Irongate, J.C. Boyle, and Copco 1 and 2 - along the Klamath River in California emerged as the key to any agreement. Though environmental and Indian groups have sought a way to return the river to its free-flowing state to restore endangered salmon, other groups have seen the dams as the foundation of an intricate latticework of infrastructure that produces low-cost electricity and provides water to producers around the area.
The agreement provides an adequate time frame for PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, to replace the power the dams generate. In an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior earlier this month, PacifiCorp and the states of California and Oregon will fund the cost of removing the dams with $200 million in customer surcharges and a $250 million general obligation bond that California will issue.
The time will also be used to study the environmental effects of dam removal.
The agreement also has detractors, including some off-project water users and Siskiyou County, Calif.
Some off-project water users believe their water rights are not adequately protected in the deal. Some 30,000 acre feet of water rights would be retired. They also question giving up low-cost, reliable power from the dams when fish ladders could allow fish passage much more efficiently.
"There are other options besides dam removal, but they don't even want to talk about that," Tom Mallams, a hay farmer and president of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users, told the Capital Press.
Siskiyou County officials want to know the economic impact of the dam removal on the local economy before signing off on the proposal. Describing the dams as "essential" and an "integral part" of the county, the officials oppose the Klamath Basin agreement and have threatened to sue to stop it.
Proponents, however, maintain that the agreement is part of an ongoing effort and not a done deal. Steve Kandra, a farmer and board member of the Klamath Water Users Association, which took part in the negotiations, sees it as a "milepost in the process."
He urges critics to become a part of the solution instead of standing on the outside.
"If people have things that need to be polished up and updated, they need to make a decision to be in the program," Kandra said.
Other off-project water users support the agreement and see it as a way to provide stability for farmers and ranchers.
"The train has left the station," Becky Hyde, a rancher and member of the Upper Klamath Water Users' Association, told the Capital Press. "There's really only two options: settle or litigate. Litigation, to me, is a pretty big gamble."
That's a statement with which everyone can agree.
The many groups and individuals in the Klamath Basin had a choice to make. Though the situation was exceedingly complicated, it boiled down to this: They could either sit down and attempt to untangle the many issues that have strangled progress in the region, or they could go back to the courts or work the backrooms in Washington, D.C., Sacramento and Salem to try to achieve their goals.
It is to the benefit of all that most of the parties chose the route of diplomacy and to work for a fair settlement of the issues facing them and everyone in the basin, which straddles the California-Oregon border.
The issues
Has there ever been a more complicated set of facts facing any region? Though farmers in California's Imperial and Central valleys and in Idaho's Snake River valley and Washington and Oregon's Columbia River valley have gone through the regulatory wringer on numerous occasions, those issues are no more complicated - or vexing - than those facing the Klamath Basin.
They include, but are not limited to, tribal rights, power generation and affordability, endangered species of fish and the availability of water for irrigation. Add to that the fact that the contested hydroelectric dams are downstream - rather than upstream - of the primary land served by most irrigation diversions, plus a couple of interbasin irrigation diversions, and you have a complex playing field.
During the course of years of negotiations, removal of four dams - Irongate, J.C. Boyle, and Copco 1 and 2 - along the Klamath River in California emerged as the key to any agreement. Though environmental and Indian groups have sought a way to return the river to its free-flowing state to restore endangered salmon, other groups have seen the dams as the foundation of an intricate latticework of infrastructure that produces low-cost electricity and provides water to producers around the area.
The agreement provides an adequate time frame for PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, to replace the power the dams generate. In an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior earlier this month, PacifiCorp and the states of California and Oregon will fund the cost of removing the dams with $200 million in customer surcharges and a $250 million general obligation bond that California will issue.
The time will also be used to study the environmental effects of dam removal.
The agreement also has detractors, including some off-project water users and Siskiyou County, Calif.
Some off-project water users believe their water rights are not adequately protected in the deal. Some 30,000 acre feet of water rights would be retired. They also question giving up low-cost, reliable power from the dams when fish ladders could allow fish passage much more efficiently.
"There are other options besides dam removal, but they don't even want to talk about that," Tom Mallams, a hay farmer and president of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users, told the Capital Press.
Siskiyou County officials want to know the economic impact of the dam removal on the local economy before signing off on the proposal. Describing the dams as "essential" and an "integral part" of the county, the officials oppose the Klamath Basin agreement and have threatened to sue to stop it.
Proponents, however, maintain that the agreement is part of an ongoing effort and not a done deal. Steve Kandra, a farmer and board member of the Klamath Water Users Association, which took part in the negotiations, sees it as a "milepost in the process."
He urges critics to become a part of the solution instead of standing on the outside.
"If people have things that need to be polished up and updated, they need to make a decision to be in the program," Kandra said.
Other off-project water users support the agreement and see it as a way to provide stability for farmers and ranchers.
"The train has left the station," Becky Hyde, a rancher and member of the Upper Klamath Water Users' Association, told the Capital Press. "There's really only two options: settle or litigate. Litigation, to me, is a pretty big gamble."
That's a statement with which everyone can agree.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml